THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Alternate question: what's the maximum amount of time you would be willing to support a US troop presence greater than, say, 20k troops in country?

Cycloptichorn

After the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, without our help, against MMONM (i.e., Mass Murderers Of Non-Murders) in Iraq:
6 months.

Before the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, without our help, against MMONM (i.e., Mass Murderers Of Non-Murders) in Iraq:
as long as I live.

Let's not forget that Cheney continues to benefit from all this money being poured into this war.

The U.S.-backed Iraqi cabinet approved a new oil law Monday that is set to give foreign companies the long-term contracts and safe legal framework they have been waiting for, but which has rattled labour unions and international campaigners who say oil production should remain in the hands of Iraqis.

Independent analysts and labour groups have also criticised the process of drafting the law and warned that that the bill is so skewed in favour of foreign firms that it could end up heightening political tensions in the Arab nation and spreading instability.

For example, it specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting for 15 to 20 years.

This policy would represent a u-turn for Iraq's oil industry, which has been in the public sector for more than three decades, and would break from normal practice in the Middle East.

According to local labour leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection.

Union leaders have complained that they, along with other civil society groups, were left out of the drafting process despite U.S. claims it has created a functioning democracy in Iraq.

Under the production-sharing agreements provided for in the draft law, companies will not come under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts in the event of a dispute, nor to the general auditor.

The ownership of the oil reserves under this draft law will remain with the state in form, but not in substance, critics say.

On Feb. 8, the labour unions sent a letter in Arabic to Iraqi President Jalal Talbani urging him to reconsider this kind of agreement.

"Production-sharing agreements are a relic of the 1960s," said the letter. "They will re-imprison the Iraqi economy and impinge on Iraq's sovereignty since they only preserve the interests of foreign companies. We warn against falling into this trap."

Ewa Jasiewicz, a researcher at PLATFORM, a British human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry, told IPS in a phone interview from London that, "First of all, it hasn't been put together in any kind of democratic process... It's been put through a war and an occupation which in itself is a grotesquely undemocratic process."

The law was prepared by a three-member Iraqi cabinet committee, dominated by the Kurds and the Shiites. It is now expected to be ratified by parliament because the powerful faction leaders in the government have cleared it.

The first draft was seen only by the committee of the Iraqi technocrat who penned it, nine international oil companies, the British and the U.S. governments and the International Monetary Fund. The Iraqi parliament will get its first glimpse next week.

Concerns about the process are compounded because of the ongoing disputes in Iraq over the legitimacy of the Iraqi cabinet and the Iraqi parliament, which have been constructed by the occupation-created governing council, which itself was created in 2004 along sectarian lines.

In a speech earlier this month by Hassan Juma, head of the Iraqi Oil Labour Union, posted on the union's website, he called on the Iraqi government to consult with Iraqi oil experts and "ask their opinion before sinking Iraq into an ocean of dark injustice."

The content of the law has also worried both international campaigners and local Iraqi groups who say that it puts Iraqi oil wealth firmly on the path to full privatisation.

"The hydrocarbon law reflects the process of readying Iraq's oil for privatisation," said Jasiewicz. "Drafted in secret, shaped by foreign powers, untransparent, undemocratic and forced through under military occupation."

Jasiewicz said the law can be regarded as the economic goal of the war and occupation and that "it will be viewed by most Iraqis as not just illegitimate, but a war crime."

But officials from the Iraqi government, who have already sent the draft oil law to parliament for consideration, say it represents a step forward for the war-torn country. Under the law, oil revenues would be distributed to all 18 provinces based on population size, and regional administrations have the authority to negotiate contracts with international oil companies.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a close ally of Washington, called the law "another founding stone in state-building."

"This law will guarantee for Iraqis, not just now but for future generations too, complete national control over this natural wealth," Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani has reportedly said.

Initial drafts of the law starting eight months ago saw squabbles between the Kurdish factions who control the northern part of Iraq and the Shiite-led regime, as they both vied for bigger shares of the country's oil wealth, estimated at 115 billion barrels. That they have finally come to a final agreement may be a sign of long-sought stability.

Yet critics, including Iraqi oil professionals, engineers and technicians in the unions, are instead advocating for technical service contracts, meaning a company would come in and offer services such as building a refinery, laying a pipeline, or offering consultancy services, get their fees and then leave.

"It is a much more equitable relationship because the control of production, development of oil will stay with the Iraqi state," said Jasiewicz.

"That is the model that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait generally operate. There's no other country in the Middle East with the kind of oil reserves that Iraq has that would consider signing a production-sharing agreement," she said. "It's a form of privatisation and that's why those countries haven't signed these because it's not in their interests."

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Alternate question: what's the maximum amount of time you would be willing to support a US troop presence greater than, say, 20k troops in country?

Cycloptichorn

After the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, without our help, against MMONM (i.e., Mass Murderers Of Non-Murders) in Iraq:
6 months.

Before the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, without our help, against MMONM (i.e., Mass Murderers Of Non-Murders) in Iraq:
as long as I live.

Given your advanced age, are the two really that far apart?

I Kid!

Honestly, you would support a never-ending committment of more than 20k troops?

Cycloptichorn

ican, "Iraqis are able to defend themselves,". That's just a soundbite. Defend themselves against themselves? We're fueling both sides of the insurgency. It's time for America to stop wasting lives in Iraq. Stop bullying Iran, Syria and everyone else. Let Bushie and Blair apologize for this unjust, unneeded war and let's lock them up. Let their life sentence be a deterrent to future mass murderers. The problems in Iraq between insurgents is largely an economic matter more easily resolved amongst themselves without outside interferrence from greedy international corporate fascists who siced Saddam Hussein on Iraq in the first place.

merriam-webster's unabridged dictionary
Main Entry: ma·lar·key Pronunciation Guide
Variant(s): also ma·lar·ky \mlärk, -lk, -ki\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural malarkeys also malarkies
Etymology: origin unknown
: insincere or pretentious talk or writing designed to impress one and usually to distract attention from ulterior motives or actual conditions : NONSENSE <column> <masters>

ican, When will you understand that a temporary 20,000 more troops is not going to do anything but expose more of our soldiers to death and mayhem? You must also know by now that those 20,000 troops going to Iraq will be going without proper equipment and training. You are truly stubborn!

Iraqi Oil Law Gives Cover for Corporate Profit

Quote:

The U.S.-backed Iraqi cabinet approved a new oil law Monday that is set to give foreign companies the long-term contracts and safe legal framework they have been waiting for, but which has rattled labour unions and international campaigners who say oil production should remain in the hands of Iraqis.

...

Initial drafts of the law starting eight months ago saw squabbles between the Kurdish factions who control the northern part of Iraq and the Shiite-led regime, as they both vied for bigger shares of the country's oil wealth, estimated at 115 billion barrels. That they have finally come to a final agreement may be a sign of long-sought stability.

Yet critics, including Iraqi oil professionals, engineers and technicians in the unions, are instead advocating for technical service contracts, meaning a company would come in and offer services such as building a refinery, laying a pipeline, or offering consultancy services, get their fees and then leave.

"It is a much more equitable relationship because the control of production, development of oil will stay with the Iraqi state," said Jasiewicz.

"That is the model that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait generally operate. There's no other country in the Middle East with the kind of oil reserves that Iraq has that would consider signing a production-sharing agreement," she said. "It's a form of privatisation and that's why those countries haven't signed these because it's not in their interests."

The population of Iraq is about 27 million. About 12 milion are children. the rest, about 15 million, are adults. About 80% or about 12 million of those adults voted for democracy in January 2006.

ican, The US doesn't have any more troops to send to Iraq. You can't send something that doesn't exist. Do you understand anything about logistics and common sense?

You can't be engaged in a war for four years with the current military strength; it's determined to be inefficient and nonproductive, because there is no way to control the violence or the borders to secure "any" country.

The national guard is supposed to be our first line of defense and support for "local" security. If they're away in Iraq, that leaves our home front vulnerable. Continuing to extend their assignment in Iraq is dangerous for them and the innocent people of Iraq - and the American People.

What is it that [you] wish? What would [you] have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course [you] may take, but as for me: give me liberty or give me death!

[We] have not yet begun to fight!

Quote:

The population of Iraq is about 27 million. About 12 milion are children. the rest, about 15 million, are adults. About 80% or about 12 million of those adults voted for democracy in January 2006.

Ican, there are less than 27 million now, btw; lots of displaced folks. I'll try to track the number down today.

One source I've encountered, but cannot corroborate, said that about 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq since they voted for democracy in January 2006.

You say that we can't let the AQ coalition win in Iraq; is it safer to let the pro-Iranian shiites win?

It depends on whether or not the pro-Iranian shiites are pro the current Iranian government. If they are, then I don't want them to win either. Surely by now we both agree that if our military vacates Iraq, before the Iraqis can defend themselves without our help, there is little chance that the al-Qaeda confederation will not win in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

ican, We're not talking about the "borders of the US."

You wrote [emphasis added]:

Quote:

You can't be engaged in a war for four years with the current military strength; it's determined to be inefficient and nonproductive, because there is no way to control the violence or the borders to secure "any" country.

Now I infer you mean: no way to control the violence or the borders to secure "any" country in the middle east.

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Like I said previously:
I'd rather die trying to prove you wrong, then die failing to try to prove you wrong.

As for our troop levels, you haven't been paying attention. They're recruiting criminals with records and those without a high school education. They're also paying a $20,000 bonus to recruit them. There's a sense of desperation to recruit more men and women while keeping our troops in Iraq for longer and longer assignments.

Worldwide we have over 2 million volunteer troops in our military. Yes, recruiting an adequate number to replace those retiring is more difficult now. However, it is quite remarkable that so many of our troops that have served their required tours in Iraq are voluntarily signing up for repeated tours of duty in Iraq.

...

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, We're not talking about the "borders of the US."

ican wrote: You wrote [emphasis added]:

Quote:

You can't be engaged in a war for four years with the current military strength; it's determined to be inefficient and nonproductive, because there is no way to control the violence or the borders to secure "any" country.

If our soldiers are in Iraq, how is our borders supposed to be protected? Especially, since Bush won't allow our national reserve troops to shoot at anybody with guns trying to trespass into our country?

ican wrote: Now I infer you mean: no way to control the violence or the borders to secure "any" country in the middle east.

That too!

ican wrote: What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Here, again, you don't have any understanding of logistics and common sense. If we have sufficient military personnel, why are we extending active duty for those who should have been discharged?

ican wrote: Like I said previously:
I'd rather die trying to prove you wrong, then die failing to try to prove you wrong.

ci wrote: As for our troop levels, you haven't been paying attention. They're recruiting criminals with records and those without a high school education. They're also paying a $20,000 bonus to recruit them. There's a sense of desperation to recruit more men and women while keeping our troops in Iraq for longer and longer assignments.

Worldwide we have over 2 million volunteer troops in our military. Yes, recruiting an adequate number to replace those retiring is more difficult now. However, it is quite remarkable that so many of our troops that have served their required tours in Iraq are voluntarily signing up for repeated tours of duty in Iraq.

ican, You're not listening again! I said we are now recruiting criminals and those without high school education. Why do you continue to insist we are not short of troops?

And for the very first time in military history during an active war, active military men are saying this war in Iraq is a failure. If you haven't heard of this, you're just not paying attention....

ican, I'm not sure where you're getting two (2) million in our military, but according the the Department of Defense, we have less than 1.5 million.

Personnel in each service
As of 2004

Service Total Active Duty Personnel
Army 500,203
Marine Corps 180,000
Navy 375,521
Air Force 358,612
Coast Guard 40,151
Total 1,450,689

Worldwide we have over 2 million volunteer troops in our military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States
United States Armed Forces
Approximately 1,426,713 personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components:

Active troops = 1,426,713
Reserve troops = 1,259,000
Total troops = 2,685,713

ican, ... I said we are now recruiting criminals and those without high school education. Why do you continue to insist we are not short of troops?

And for the very first time in military history during an active war, active military men are saying this war in Iraq is a failure.